C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
I hear it’s not called Global Warming anymore. It’s called Climate Change. I don’t think there is enough evidence, but it sure has been cold here the last few years. I wish it would warm up!!
- Status
C
Calliso
Guest
globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png
A temperature graph going back about 1000 years. (though it should be noted that these are basically reconstructions based on icecore data tree rings coral that sort of thing.)
A temperature graph going back about 1000 years. (though it should be noted that these are basically reconstructions based on icecore data tree rings coral that sort of thing.)
C
Cracker_Mom
Guest
Convenient to call it climate change since that’s what it does naturally anywayI hear it’s not called Global Warming anymore. It’s called Climate Change. I don’t think there is enough evidence, but it sure has been cold here the last few years. I wish it would warm up!!
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Yes. It was a double hit, with the sunspots gone and the La Nina, meaning it should have been exceptionally cold. Intstead it was one of the hottest on record, and hotter than any year before 1988.
That is a bit troubling. And the fact that this January was warmer yet, is even more so. Hopefully, it’s an anomaly. We’ll know in the next few months.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Where do you live that it is warmer this year?
It’s been much colder in the mid-west this year. Also, here in Oregon, much colder.
C
Calliso
Guest
We are talking about the world here as a whole. But you need to understand global warming doesn;t mean it will never be cold anywhere ever again. You can have global warming and winter…Where do you live that it is warmer this year?
But anyway here is a nice link
ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2009/jan/global.html
C
Calliso
Guest
You know when I saw that ocean cooling article mention lyman and argo …I knew I had seen it somewhere else before. Anyway you all might wanna read these…
realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/ocean-cooling-not/
oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page3.php
realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/ocean-cooling-not/
oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page3.php
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
The Earth. It was the ninth hottest year on record for the Earth as a whole. That would include all continents and oceans. It was hotter some places, colder others.
Hmm… let’s take a look:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Most of the continental US was warmer than normal. Which, given the reduced solar warming and a La Nina, is a bit surprising. One would have expected it to be a lot colder on the average. Note that some of Oregon was a bit colder, but most of it was a bit warmer.
The models are still underestimating the actual warming caused by CO2.
J
John1956
Guest
Wow, a whole 1.2 degrees difference from the coldest to the warmest between 1860 and 2000 ! Should I be terrified now or later?
Weather is a subset of climate. Climate changes just as the weather changes, just as night and day change, just as humidity changes, just as seasons change, etc., etc., etc.
John
G
gilliam
Guest
crh.noaa.gov/images/mqt/Lake%20Superior%20ice%20Mar3_09t.jpg
Due to the recent cold spell and below normal temperatures for much of the winter of 2008-2009, ice covers nearly all of Lake Superior. Only small areas of open water remain. This image was taken on Tuesday, March 3rd. If arctic air does not return in the next couple of weeks, it is likely that this will be the day of maximum ice cover on Lake Superior for this winter as warmer weather and periods of stronger winds through the end of this week will cause open water areas to expand. Click on the image to view a higher resolution satellite picture (image is large – just under 1mb).
crh.noaa.gov/mqt/?n=lake_superior_ice
This normally happens once every 20 years. We have seen this twice so far this decade.
Due to the recent cold spell and below normal temperatures for much of the winter of 2008-2009, ice covers nearly all of Lake Superior. Only small areas of open water remain. This image was taken on Tuesday, March 3rd. If arctic air does not return in the next couple of weeks, it is likely that this will be the day of maximum ice cover on Lake Superior for this winter as warmer weather and periods of stronger winds through the end of this week will cause open water areas to expand. Click on the image to view a higher resolution satellite picture (image is large – just under 1mb).
crh.noaa.gov/mqt/?n=lake_superior_ice
This normally happens once every 20 years. We have seen this twice so far this decade.
G
gilliam
Guest
There is no shame in conceding that science still has a long way to go before it fully understands the immense complexity of the Earth’s ever-changing climate(s). It would be shameful not to concede it. The climate models on which so much global-warming alarmism rests “do not begin to describe the real world that we live in,” says Freeman Dyson, the eminent physicist and futurist. “The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand.”
But for many people, the science of climate change is not nearly as important as the religion of climate change. When Al Gore insisted yet again at a conference last Thursday that there can be no debate about global warming, he was speaking not with the authority of a man of science, but with the closed-minded dogmatism of a religious zealot. Dogma and zealotry have their virtues, no doubt. But if we want to understand where global warming has gone, those aren’t the tools we need.
boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/08/wheres_global_warming/
But for many people, the science of climate change is not nearly as important as the religion of climate change. When Al Gore insisted yet again at a conference last Thursday that there can be no debate about global warming, he was speaking not with the authority of a man of science, but with the closed-minded dogmatism of a religious zealot. Dogma and zealotry have their virtues, no doubt. But if we want to understand where global warming has gone, those aren’t the tools we need.
boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/08/wheres_global_warming/
O
ohioszo
Guest
The weather has been really mixed up. I agree with the thought that this winter was a normal winter. We had a snow like the year of 1978, which makes it a 30 year lull. There has been some odd-weather years near the Lakes. I live in Northwest Ohio. Last year there was a lot of flooding. So much water, in 50 years here, never have we had the sewage back up into our basement, but, it happened 3 serious, 4 or 5 total times last year. (Ours sewers are 100 years old BTW.) Last year, had a good crop of grapes and pears, but we there have bad some badly dry years … what I mean is that the weather is not normal every year, there is some rather odd weather patterns. This story of yours is just an example of that, rather than that there is no global warming.
G
gilliam
Guest
Or not…
As of today, all California Snowtel stations report normal snow depth and water content, as do all stations in Colorado where California gets much of their water from. I wonder how this affects their drought?
C
Calliso
Guest
G
gilliam
Guest
sigh…
Yes, weather still happens, climate runs in cycles sometimes it’s hot and sometimes it is cold. And we are coming out of a glacial period, so things should be warming up and the seas should be getting a little higher (shock: they are!
) But there is no reason to think that all this is because of manmade global warming, especially since the climate models don’t really reflect what is going on (no CO2 models predicticted this cooling phase as far as I know. In fact, they predicted dramatic warming, which hasn’t happened.)Want another theory? How abut the sun?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/PDOAMOTEMP_thumb.jpg
G
gilliam
Guest
- I’ve never seen anything quite like this in my now 40 years in Washington. I’ve never seen anything like the enlistment of the mainstream media in a political crusade — and this is a political crusade, because it’s about how we should be governed and how we should live; those are the great questions of politics. It is clearly for some people a surrogate religion. It’s a spiritual quest. It offers redemption. But what it also always offers, whether it is global cooling or global warming, is a rationale for the government to radically increase its supervision of our life and our choices. Whether the globe is cooling, whether it’s warming, the government’s going to be the winner and the governing class will be the winner.
O
ohioszo
Guest
This year has been reassuring to me, weather-wise. I am very grateful, to God, for the cold and snowy weather. I often remark on liking winter, when people say the opposite … not wanting our Lord to hear these ungrateful remarks without me blessing his creation. I had wondered if, with ours, that our weather patterns have changed; that if we want weather like it once was, one would need to move further north for it … into Canada. The ice caps are a worry. Migration patterns are a worry. What does the goose incident with the plane signify? Is it due to a change in flying patterns, or are we so dumb to fly into a flock of geese?
This year, we’ve had a very good winter, with plenty of cold and snow. I haven’t read nor heard much else but that elderly wish for more mild weather; so your post was intriguing. I know that the southwest may have wanted water from the Great Lakes, and that a pact between the states would prevent an unwise movement of water out of the Lakes. We had a large number of ice fisherman rescued, after they had suddenly found themselves and their equipment on the wrong side of a crack when the weather warmed up one Saturday. I’ll await any summation of the warm and cold fronts that made something like that happen. Warm one day, cold the next … another week, ditto, etc. We had an Indian Summer in January, if I remember rightly!
G
gilliam
Guest
Most of the states in the Southwest get water from snow. CA gets water from the Sierra Nevada’s and the Colorado River (who’s source is in the Western Rocky Mountains in Colorado). Nevada gets water from the Sierra Nevada and the Colorado river and groundwater. Arizona gets water from the Colorado River, it’s own mountain snows and groundwater. Utah is in the great basin, it gets its water from it’s own mountains. New Mexico gets run off from the Rocky Mountains, and it’s own mountains and ground water.
G
gilliam
Guest
Interesting lecture tonight:
The global warming issue has done much to set back climate science. In particular, the notion that climate is one-dimensional – which is to say, that it is totally described by some fictitious global mean temperature and some single gross forcing *a la *increased CO2 – is grotesque in its oversimplification. I must reluctantly add that this error is perpetuated by those attempting to ‘explain’ climate with solar variability. Unlike greenhouse forcing, solar forcing is so vague that one can’t reject it.
However, acting as though this is the alternative to greenhouse forcing is asking for trouble.
Remember, we are dealing with a small amount of warming (concentrated in two relatively brief episodes) in an inadequately observed system. The proper null hypothesis is that there was no need whatsoever for external forcing in order to produce such behavior. The unsteady and even turbulent motions of the ocean and atmosphere are forever moving heat from one place to another on time scales from days to centuries and, in doing so, they leave the system out of equilibrium with the sun leading to fluctuations in temperature.
The thought that these turbulent fluctuations demand specific causes is absurd – almost as absurd as calling for specific causes for each whirl in a bubbling brook.
heartland.org/full/24841/Climate_Alarm_What_We_Are_Up_Against_and_What_to_Do.html
The global warming issue has done much to set back climate science. In particular, the notion that climate is one-dimensional – which is to say, that it is totally described by some fictitious global mean temperature and some single gross forcing *a la *increased CO2 – is grotesque in its oversimplification. I must reluctantly add that this error is perpetuated by those attempting to ‘explain’ climate with solar variability. Unlike greenhouse forcing, solar forcing is so vague that one can’t reject it.
However, acting as though this is the alternative to greenhouse forcing is asking for trouble.
Remember, we are dealing with a small amount of warming (concentrated in two relatively brief episodes) in an inadequately observed system. The proper null hypothesis is that there was no need whatsoever for external forcing in order to produce such behavior. The unsteady and even turbulent motions of the ocean and atmosphere are forever moving heat from one place to another on time scales from days to centuries and, in doing so, they leave the system out of equilibrium with the sun leading to fluctuations in temperature.
The thought that these turbulent fluctuations demand specific causes is absurd – almost as absurd as calling for specific causes for each whirl in a bubbling brook.
heartland.org/full/24841/Climate_Alarm_What_We_Are_Up_Against_and_What_to_Do.html
N
Non_sum_dignus
Guest
We were supposedly in an ice age 40,000 years ago. This ended without a single internal combustion engine on the road. Temperatures are supposed to be noticeably warmer several hundred years ago, without a single aerosol can in operation.
But now, a single centigrade degree over the course of 100 years is proof that humanity has the climate dangling like a marionette on the strings of its industry? As the faulty science behind this panic is exposed, it continues to lose steam. Of course, it’s harder for a scientist to get air time when he’s not advancing a leftist political agenda, isn’t it?
But now, a single centigrade degree over the course of 100 years is proof that humanity has the climate dangling like a marionette on the strings of its industry? As the faulty science behind this panic is exposed, it continues to lose steam. Of course, it’s harder for a scientist to get air time when he’s not advancing a leftist political agenda, isn’t it?
- Status